Favourable opinions of employees of each organization about the employer are a key element of building its image and brand, referred to as employer branding (EB). The aim of this article is to present the possibility of using the issue of gender equality to build the brand of a research institution, especially in the context of EB. This problem is discussed based on the example of the results of a survey conducted by the staff of the Central Mining Institute-National Research Institute (GIG-PIB), carried out as part of the gender equality plan (GEP) developed in 2022. The study focuses on issues such as work–life balance, gender balance in management and decision-making, gender equality in recruitment and career development, gender mainstreaming in research and combating gender-based violence.

Brand Importance

A brand, as an attribute identifying companies, organizations or products, plays a fundamental role in the modern world. It is most often defined as ‘a name, term, symbol, pattern or a combination thereof, created to identify the goods or services of a seller or a group of goods or services and to distinguish them from the competition’ and, as Kotler and Keller (2012) emphasize, ‘it is not a stamp, but a kind of promise and promise that should shape the behavior and strategy of the company’. Depending on the need and type of organization or product, the brand has various functions: identification, warranty or promotion (Altkorn, 2001), although of course most often its task is to present the vision of the company to customers in such a way that it is easier for them to make purchasing decisions.

Kall (2006) defines a brand as ‘a combination of a physical product, a brand name, packaging, advertising, and accompanying distribution and price activities, a combination that, by distinguishing a marketer’s offer from competing offers, provides the consumer with distinctive functional and/or symbolic advantages, thereby creating a loyal group of buyers and thus enabling the achievement of a leading position in the market’. According to the AMA, a brand is ‘a name, term, mark, symbol or design, or combination thereof, intended to identify the goods or services of a retailer or group thereof and to distinguish them from those of competitors’. The key to creating a brand is the ability to choose a name, logotype, symbol, packaging design or other characteristics that will define the product and make it stand out from other goods. These different components of a brand that define and differentiate it are the elements of the brand (Keller, 2015).

The key to building a competitive advantage lies in the fact that the brand distinguishes the company’s offer from others; it is a promise of what can be expected from a given product or company (Pringle & Gordon, 2008). A measurable value for an organization is created by skilful brand management, that is, effective consolidation of the brand in the minds of recipients and making the product stand out among the offers of competitive brands (Patkowski, 2010).

One of the key tools for building brand recognition is brand image. It is defined either as ‘the set of meanings by which an object is known and by which people describe, remember, and relate to it’ (Dowling, 1986) or ‘the idea that one person or many audiences have of a person, company, or institution’ (Newsom et al., 1993). A brand can build its image in two ways. The first one is related to how managers want to present their company. The second one focuses on how the company is perceived externally and on public opinion, which are definitely more effective with product brands (Figiel, 2011). One of the functions of brand image, considered from the point of view of a company or organisation, is building the employer’s brand—an EB. In recent years, this English-language term has become a permanent fixture in the contemporary catalogue of marketing terms. The EB is a multifaceted activity of a company aimed at creating an image of an employer that is desirable in the labour market. It refers to the strategies and actions taken by organizations to build and promote their image as an attractive employer. One of its primary goals is to attract, engage and retain high-quality employees.

The term ‘Employer Branding’ was first used in the late 1990s (Ambler & Barrow, 1996) and popularized in 2001 by McKinsey (Axelrod et al., 2001). In the research conducted by Backhaus and Tikoo (2004), the term is understood as ‘the process of building an identifiable and unique identity of the employer’, while Sullivan (2004) considers it to be ‘a targeted long-term strategy for managing brand awareness and perception among employees, potential employees, and related stakeholders’. It allows for greater employee engagement, voluntary intellectual contributions, experiencing positive emotions and establishing better connections with other colleagues (Davies et al., 2018). Today, EB is also defined as a management strategy to retain current employees and attract new, relevant talent (Bussin & Mouton, 2019). Attracting and retaining talent as an effort by the employer is intended to support the achievement of the employer’s business goals (Rappaport et al., 2003). Kozłowski (2016) points out that EB is one of the few activities in a company that concerns its most sensitive areas, such as brand, human resources and finance, because due to the remuneration policy or marketing budget, it is difficult to treat these aspects as distinct and separate.

Another important aspect from the EB point of view is job satisfaction, as an employee’s emotional response to his or her specific job (Lambert et al., 2016) and a sense of satisfaction with the experience of the work performed (Owusu, 2014). EB is therefore strongly related to human resource management and involves striving for relevant goals such as attracting and retaining the most valuable employees who will ensure the company’s success and development, as well as reduce the costs of recruitment and employee turnover (Ober, 2016). However, it is not enough to create new jobs to attract workers. You have to make people want to fill them, so you must care about the candidate experience and treat them the same way you treat customers (Gojtowska, 2019).

Therefore, it can be concluded that EB is an activity whose core is focused on the company’s employees. The most frequently used tools in this area can include not only various types of benefits, incentive systems and development programmes, but also strategies supporting equality between women and men in the workplace. For scientific and research institutions, GEPs can be useful for EB.

Gender Equality in National and European Legislation

In the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997 and the Labour Code, Article 183a, which is entirely devoted to the issue of equal treatment in employment (Labour Code, 2014), is the basic national legal act that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex and the obligation to implement the principle of equal opportunities for women and men. In terms of national documents, gender equality means that women and men are given the same social value, equal rights and obligations, as well as equal access to social resources (e.g. public services, labour market). This equality can be defined as a permanent situation in which both women and men have conditions that enable them to develop in their personal and professional areas and to make life choices that result from their personal needs, aspirations or talents (Ministry of Family and Social Policy, 2022).

The legal basis for gender equality of the European Union is enshrined in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union as a fundamental European value (EC, 2003) and extended in the provisions of the European Pact for Gender Equality of 2011 (EC, 2011). However, the reports adopted by the European Commission show that progress in this area is very slow and that real gender equality has not yet been achieved. The European Union’s new strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Europe 2020, aimed to achieve these objectives (EC, 2010).

The European Commission’s Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025 is of particular importance for research institutions. One of the objectives of this strategy is to strengthen the European Research Area (ERA) and ensure equal opportunities in a work environment where everyone can develop talents equally. Article 7 of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Horizon Europe is the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, which refers to the need to ensure equal opportunities and gender mainstreaming in research and innovation content. Horizon Europe activities ‘should aim to eliminate gender bias and gender gaps, improve work–life balance and promote equality between women and men in research and innovation, including the principle of equal pay without discrimination based on sex’ (EC, 2021).

Methodology

The main objectives of the research were to develop a diagnosis of the state of gender equality and eliminate barriers to the implementation of these principles at the GIG-PIB, which was reflected in the GEP of the Chief Mining Inspectorate-National Research Institute developed on this basis.

The methodology of the work involved, in the first place, an analysis of existing data including: existing national and EU regulations, an analysis of the current situation in GIG-PIB in the field of equality between women and men, including: internal documents of GIG-PIB, the composition of advisory bodies of GIG-PIB, the structure of employment in GIG-PIB and an analysis of the remuneration of women and men in GIG-PIB, including academic staff, and a survey of all GIG-PIB employees, which was intended to give them an opportunity to express an opinion on equality issues. A detailed analysis of the provisions of 84 internal legal acts in force at the GIG was carried out, that is, orders, letters according to the distribution list and circular letters of the Director of the GIG as of Jan. 3, 2022 (at that time, the GIG did not yet have the status of NRI, which it obtained in 2023).

This article presents the results of a survey of all GIG-PIB employees, carried out using a computer-assisted web interviewing (CAWI) survey. The CAWI quantitative survey was conducted among all GIG-PIB employees from May 13 to 20, 2022. The questionnaire was addressed to 471 people employed at the Institute at that time on a full-time or part-time basis. The survey was completed by 182 people, of which 57.1% were men (104 people) and 42.9% were women (78 people). The survey was attended by a group that met the conditions of a representative sample, that is, 38.6% of all GIG-PIB employees.

Employees of different age groups took part in the survey. The largest groups constituted employees aged 41–50, who accounted for 31.3% of the total respondents, and employees aged 31–40, who accounted for 29.1% of the total. Employees aged 51–60 accounted for 18.1% and those over 60 years accounted for 17.03% of all respondents. The smallest group was the one with employees under 30 years of age accounting for 4.40%. The largest number of responses were received from persons employed at GIG-PIB in the range of 11–20 years (38.5%) and up to 10 years (29.7%). People with 21 years to 30 years of work experience accounted for 14.3%, and those over 30 years of age accounted for 17.6%.

When asked about belonging to the employee group, the highest number of responses was received from researchers (28.6%) and research and technical staff (17.0%). The group of engineering and technical employees accounted for 27.5%; administrative and economic employees, 24.9% and service employees, 2.7%. There was no response from workers in the ‘workers’ group.

Gender Equality in the Research Unit. Case Study of the GIG-PIB

To eliminate barriers to the implementation of the principle of gender equality at the Central Mining Institute and to develop the GIG GEP, detailed research was conducted in 2022 to collect knowledge and data on the state of gender equality at the Institute.

Analysis of Existing Data

The employment structure at GIG-PIB has stabilized in recent years and amounts to about 500 people. Figure 1 shows the total number of employees in 2017–2021, broken down into women and men, and the percentage share of women in total employment. The share of women in employment at GIG-PIB has been around 38% in the last few years.

Since its inception, the GIG-PIB has been an industry research institute, where the main subject of work, since its establishment in 1925, has been scientific support for the mining sector, mainly hard coal mining. This has had an impact on the structure of employment at GIG-PIB, especially in the so-called ‘mining’ research and development plants. For these reasons, among others, there was a predominance of men in employment at GIG-PIB, which is still visible today and is shown in Figure 2. Currently, there are two scientific and research divisions in GIG-PIB: the geoengineering and industrial safety division (formerly ‘mining’) and the environmental engineering division.

With the average share of women in employment at GIG-PIB amounting to about 38%, there is a clear predominance of employed men in the geoengineering and industrial safety division—about 79% of total employment. There is an almost even distribution in the environmental engineering division, as women account for about 52% of the total workforce.

Survey Results

The substantive questions in the questionnaire were divided into five thematic areas:

1. work–life balance,
2. gender balance in management and decision-making bodies,
3. gender equality in recruitment and career development,
4. gender mainstreaming in the research process, and
5. measures to combat gender-based violence.

The results of the survey in the area of work–life balance prove that employees have a positive attitude towards their work. In total, 84.6% of employees are of the opinion that they perform work at the Institute corresponding to their education. On average, 56% of employees spend between 8 hr and 10 hr a day at work, and 13.2% spend more than 10 hr a day. Almost half of the respondents (47.6%) have never experienced a situation in which they had to give up some aspects of their professional work necessary for career development due to private and/or family commitments. The most common examples of restricting working life were:

• resignation from foreign trips (13.7%),
• lack of publication of scientific articles (11.3%),
• lack of involvement in the life of the Institute (8.5%),
• resignation from participation in a research project (4.2%), and
• not deciding to take up a functional position (3.3%).

After analysing the answers obtained, the results in the group of women look similar. In total, 47.2% of women did not feel such limitations, and if they did, they mainly concerned trips abroad (12.4%), publishing scientific articles (11.2%) and engaging in the life of the Institute (7.9%). The vast majority of respondents believe that combining work with family life or caring responsibilities towards children or dependents in the family is not an obstacle to their professional work. This is shown in Figure 3 with the ratings, where a rating of 1 indicates that it is very difficult to reconcile work and family life to a very small extent and a rating of 5 is very high. Totally, 36.81% of people indicate a very low degree of handicaps, and 26.9% a low degree. The answers were similar for women: 34.6% of women indicated a very low degree and 30.8% indicated a low degree.

Out of the set of systemic facilitations existing at GIG-PIB, the greatest convenience in combining work and family life for the respondents is flexible working time (40.2%) and the ability to go out during work time to deal with private matters (35%). However, the majority of GIG-PIB employees do not make full use of their annual leave during the year (58.8%), and during their holidays, they answer business phone calls and regularly check emails and answer business emails; they also work professionally on weekends (55.2%). It should be concluded that the facilities in combining professional work with family life are a significant support, for the employees of the Institute, allowing them to take care of the development of their scientific/professional careers, which is definitely an element conducive to building EB. On the other hand, the amount of unused leave may indicate excessive involvement of employees in their professional duties, or an ineffective system of organizing substitution during absences, which in turn indicates that professional matters permeate private life.

When asked about gender balance in management and decision-making bodies, 79.9% of GIG-PIB employees believe that women and men have equal access to participation in management and decision-making bodies, and 81.3% of respondents believe that gender does not matter for the performance of a managerial responsibilities. Totally, 85.7% of GIG-PIB employees are of the opinion that promotion opportunities are the same for all employees of the Institute; only 6% of the respondents answered that they had encountered discrimination when planning their research career at GIG-PIB, but none of the respondents indicated what the specific forms of this discrimination were. These results show that almost all employees have a positive perception of promotion opportunities at the Institute and do not feel barriers based on gender.

When asked about the general reasons for unequal treatment of men and women in professional promotions, the most frequently mentioned were:

• higher family burden on women due to their family situation and having children (17 indications),
• stereotypical thinking and traditional images of women and men (16 indications),
• pragmatism (e.g. women are less available) (10 responses),
• physical predispositions and biological–psychological issues (e.g. women are weaker and unable to make rational decisions, they are guided by emotions) (8 indications),
• history and tradition in perceiving mining and industry as a male domain (8 indications),
• restrictions and glass ceiling for women (4 indications), and
• obsolete management model (2 indications).

Other examples include being driven by sympathy instead of experience and competence and the fear of male staff when it turns out that women have an intellectual or expert advantage in public situations. Such results indicate that it is necessary to analyse the emerging discrepancies on an ongoing basis, and this can be achieved by developing a development path for employees, taking into account the individual potential of each of them.

When asked about gender equality in the recruitment and career development process, it turned out that 56% of the respondents did not encounter any discrimination while working at GIG-PIB. Totally, 13.4% of the respondents experienced a situation where young or older workers were not involved in scientific projects, 12.1% experienced a lack of equality in assigning ambitious tasks to women and men and 10.3% experienced limitations in access to training. The extent of limitations to career development is shown in Figure 4.

When asked about the gender pay gap, 65.4% of respondents believe that they have no knowledge of the gender pay gap in the same or similar positions. In total, 20.3% of respondents believe that they are comparable, and 12.6% believe that women’s earnings are lower. Due to the confidentiality of information on the earnings of individual employees, the answers were intuitive.

When it comes to the main questions concerning the thematic area related to gender mainstreaming in the research process, 69.2% of the respondents expressed the opinion that they had not encountered any gender-based discrimination in the GIG-PIB regarding access to participation in research projects. This means that every employee has the same access to scientific development through participation in research projects. The key criteria for this participation are competences and skills. This is confirmed by the answers obtained in the next question concerning the appointment of the project’s research team. As Figure 5 shows, respondents declare that in this case they mainly take into account:

• skills and competences—23.3%,
• experience in research projects—19.2%,
• professional experience—18.6%,
• the person’s network of contacts—12.4%, and
• education—11.6%.

When analysing the responses to their general experiences of combating gender-based violence, almost 79% of respondents say that they have not encountered gender stereotypes and prejudices while working. However, in the case of any manifestations of violence, the following were most often indicated:

• comments or jokes that refer to stereotypical beliefs about gender (24%),
• sexually suggestive comments or jokes (19.1%),
• verbal aggression (6.9%),
• harassment (4.6%), and
• persecution based on gender and sexual preferences (1.5%).

The data presented above are shown in Figure 6.

In the case of experiencing gender-based violence, two people turned to the management of the Institute (1.1%), 18.5% coped on their own and 79.3% are of the opinion that this problem does not apply to them, which probably means that they have not encountered such a situation. Since the Institute has procedures in place to limit such negative activities, the question was asked about the degree of their awareness. Totally, 76.4% of respondents declared that they were familiar with the existing regulations in the GIG-PIB related to the areas of counteracting manifestations of violence, such as: the work regulations, the antimobbing and antidiscrimination procedure in GIG-PIB and the Code of Ethics for employees of GIG-PIB.

Further internal actions to raise awareness of equality issues and reduce stereotypes in the perception of female and male roles, with particular emphasis on language, should be considered advisable. An open, inclusive workplace is extremely important from the point of view of the brand of a good employer who cares about the well-being of its employees and eliminates undesirable behaviours.

Conclusions

The analysis showed that the vast majority of employees, both women and men, positively assess the working conditions at the Institute. The research allowed to gather knowledge and data necessary to develop the GEP for GIG-PIB, the ultimate goal of which is to provide all employees of the Institute with equal opportunities for professional, scientific and personal development, while combating and reducing gender disparities and inequalities. The GIG GEP 2022–2026 formulates key principles, objectives and measures to promote equal opportunities for all employees of the Institute, regardless of their gender. Its aim is to promote equal opportunities for women and men in professional life at the Institute, including free academic and personal development. This also includes measures to reduce the under-representation of women, avoid gender disadvantages, ensure equal employment and optimise work–family balance for the Institute’s staff.

Such activities support the efforts made by GIG-PIB to build EB and consolidate the image of an attractive employer, hoping to attract and retain valuable employees, due to which such a special type of entity as a research institution develops. The obtained results allow them to be used in the implementation of the Institute’s strategy, both in terms of human resources management and the awareness and perception of the GIG-PIB brand by current and potential employees.

The situation assessed by the respondents of the survey as positive may be an element of building a competitive advantage, based on the brand of the institution and the brand of the employer, as the one who gives equal opportunities for development to women and men. Therefore, the GEPs can be an effective tool to support the achievement of these goals.

Internally, EB is an activity whose core is focused on the company’s current employees. GEPs may be useful for research units as tools supporting equality between women and men in the workplace, allowing for the improvement of employees and thus creating competitive advantages and achieving strategic goals such as development and profit.

References

1.Altkorn, J. (2001). Strategia marki. PWE Warszawa.
2.Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The Employer Brand. Journal of Brand Management, 4(3), 185–206.
3.Axelrod, E. L., Handfield-Jones, H., & Welsh, T. A. (2001). War for talent (part 2), The Mckinsey Quarterly, 2, 9–12.
4.Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Development International, 9(5), 501–517.
5.Bussin, M., & Mouton, H. (2019). Effectiveness of Employer Branding on staff retention and compensation expectations. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 22(1), 1–9. doi: 10.4102/sajems.v22i1.2412
6.Davies, G., Mete, M., & Whelan, S. (2018). When Employer Brand image aids employee satisfaction and engagement. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, 5(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2017-0028
7.Dowling, G. R. (1986). Managing your corporate images. Industrial Marketing Management, 15(2), 109–115.
8.Figiel, A. (2011). Czym jest wizerunek przedsiębiorstwa: próba- zidentyfikowania. Ekonomiczne problemy usług, 74, 83–95.
9.Gojtowska, M. (2019). Candidate experience. Jeszcze kandydat czy już klient? Wolters Kluwer.
10.Kall, J. (2006). Jak zbudować silną markę od podstaw. One Press.
11.Keller, K. (2015). Strategiczne zarządzanie marką. Oficyna Wolter Kluwer.
12.Obwieszczenie Marszałka Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 17 września 2014 r. w sprawie ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu ustawy – Kodeks pracy, No. Dz.U. 2014 poz. 1502 (2014). https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/ WDU20140001502/O/D20141502.pdf 13.Traktat o Unii Europejskiej. No. 5866 — Poz. 864 (2003). https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/ isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20040900864/O/D20040864.pdf
14.Komisja Europejska (2010). EUROPA 2020 Strategia na rzecz inteligentnego i zrównoważonego rozwoju sprzyjającego włączeniu społecznemu, Komunikat (KOM (2010) 2020 wersja ostateczna), Bruksela 3.3.2010. https://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/ pdf/1_PL_ACT_part1_v1.pdf
15.Komisja Europejska, K. E. (2011). Europejski Pakt na rzecz Równości Płci (Dz. Urz. UE C 155 z 25.05.2011). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/?uri= CELEX%3A52011XG0525%2801%29
16.Komisja Europejska, K. E. (2021). Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (EU) 2021/695 z dnia 28.04.2021 r. ustanawiające program ramowy w zakresie badań naukowych i innowacji Horyzont Europa. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R0695&from=PL
17.Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej 1997 (Dz. U. z 1997 r. nr 78, poz. 483, z późn. zm.). https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19970780483 /O/D19970483.pdf
18.Kotler, P., & Keller, K. (2012). Marketing. Rebis.
19.Kozłowski, M. (2016). Employer branding. Budowanie wizerunku pracodawcy krok po kroku. Wolters Kluwer.
20.Lambert, E. G., Minor, K. I., Wells, J. B., & Hogan, N. L. (2016). Social support’s relationship to correctional staff job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Social Science Journal, 53(1), 22–32. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2015.10.001
21.Ministerstwo Rodziny i Polityki Społecznej (2022). Krajowy Program Działań na Rzecz Równego Traktowania na lata 2022-2030. https://www.gov.pl/web/ rownetraktowanie/aktualizacja-krajowy-program-dzialan-na-rzecz-rownego-traktowania-na-lata-2022-2030
22.Newsom, D., Scott, A., & Van Slyke, T. J. (1993). This is public relations. The realities of public relations. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
23.Ober, J. (2016). Employer Branding – strategia sukcesu organizacji w nowoczesnej gospodarce. Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 95, 345–356.
24.Owusu, B. (2014). An assessment of job satisfaction and its effect on employees’ performance: A case of mining companies in the Bibiani- Anhwiaso – Bekwai District in the Western Region. Knust, 1–97, ibidem.
25.Patkowski, P. (2010). Potencjał konkurencyjny marki. Jak zdobyć przewagę na rynku. Poltext.
26.Pringle, H., & Gordon, W. (2008). Zarządzanie marką. Rebis.
27.Rappaport, A., Bancroft, E., & Okum, L. (2003). The aging workforce raises new talent management issues for employers. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 23(1), 55–66. doi: 10.1002/npr.10101
28.Sullivan, J. (2004). Eight elements of a successful employment brand.
https://www.ere.net/the-8-elements-of-a-successful-employment-brand/

Although the brand management process is determined by a company’s business activity, the final image of a brand is formed in the mind of a customer (Pitcher, 1985; Brozowska-Woś, 2020). Therefore, it is important to link the category of 'brand’ with the concept of customer perceived value, which is a nodal marketing category. Contemporary customers look for a dimension of value that will take into account more of their expectations because they are increasingly better informed, know their own needs and, most importantly, are aware of their growing importance, and, at the same time, expect a partner-like, individualized relationship from businesses (Drapińska, 2020). Therefore, they can be described as engaged customers or value (co-)creators (Pluta-Olearnik, 2019), who participate in various forms of non-transactional activity in a relation with the enterprise. They act as prosumers.

The main goal of this article is to identify the brand as a value driver for customer perceived value. The sub-goals are to define two relationships: (1) between the brand and customer engagement, and (2) between customer perceived value and customer engagement.

In the article, a value driver is understood as a product, process or any other result of the company’s business activity that satisfies identified or unconscious customer needs. It is also worth noting that we are inclined to a behavioral understanding of customer engagement, while perceiving value as a customer perceived value, also referred to in the literature as a customer value, perceived or expected (Sojkin, 2015). 'Identification’ is understood as a means of causing a certain cognitive effect, 'establishing the identity of the phenomenon or object under investigation on the basis of its most characteristic features’ (Szarucki & Bugaj, 2016), while the concept of relation is treated as 'a connection, relationship or dependence between objects, concepts, phenomena and quantities’ (New Dictionary of Correct Polish, 1999).

Brand as a customer perceived value driver

There is no commonly accepted definition of the term 'brand’ in the literature on the subject. It has several levels of meaning. Firstly, a brand may be a name, a term, a symbol, an inscription, a pattern, or any combination thereof, a color composition, melody, or an aggregation of all these elements, which are used to distinguish a specific product from competing products (Altkorn, 2001). Secondly, a brand name is treated as an element that makes it possible to recognize the company’s product and a certain level of quality (de Chernatony, McWilliam, 1989). In other words, a brand is a form of guarantee statement, an assurance of consistent quality of the product. Moreover, in the literature it is treated as a factor that determines the perceived value (Barari et al., 2021). Finally, a brand defines specific intangible assets, and, in this aspect, it is a value judgment, so it has a specific personality, hence it goes beyond the dimension of functionality and usability (de Chernatony, McWilliam, 1989). As Kall concludes (2001), in the United States, brands are limited to the added values that exist beyond the physical form of the offer.

The values and emotions symbolized by an organization become important elements in distinguishing a given company or its products (Maciejewski, Mokrysz & Wróblewski, 2020). A brand gives individual features to a specific product, generates trust, and reduces sensitivity to business cycles (Rytel, 2008). When analyzing brand-related benefits, it is worth adopting two perspectives, i.e., the company’s and the customer’s, as presented below (Tab. 1).

An analysis of the table shows that the brand is a benefit not only for the company, but also for customers. The brand of a given company is an intangible resource and, at the same time, a component of a product. Company brand creation is one of the main strategic investment decisions that result in an increase in goodwill (Rytel, 2008; Howaniec, 2008) and a competitive advantage (Pabian, 2020). The subjectively perceived value of a company or product is a result of how that company’s brand is perceived by its customers (Dolińska-Weryńska, 2018). A brand can be defined as the feelings and experiences of those who use it (Ogilvy, 1985).

When treating a brand as a perceived value driver, terms that are involved in this topic should be defined: brand strength, brand value, brand equity, consumer-based brand equity, brand awareness, brand reputation, brand identity and brand image (Tab. 2). And in this area, there are no clear definitions, as researchers often use different meanings (Polański, 2011).

When analyzing all these research categories, it is worth paying more attention to brand equity, i.e., the added value (and therefore customer perceived value) obtained by a product through the use of a trademark (Farquar, 1989). This value can be defined in three ways (Polański, 2011): (1) from the point of view of an enterprise: it involves increasing the competitiveness of an organization, which is related, inter alia, to facilitating the launch of new products and licensing; (2) from the point of view of distribution channels: brand equity results in a higher level of sales compared to other products in a given category; (3) from the customer’s point of view: brand equity involves a positive attitude towards a specific product. It aims, inter alia, to reduce the risk related to the purchase decision and provide the customer with a positive experience when using a product. This is related to how a brand is interpreted as a risk reducer. A brand reduces the risk perceived by a customer and makes customers aware that a specific product represents a value presumed for them (Jones & Nonewac, 2013).

The concept of 'brand equity’ is defined as the difference between marketing effects and the effects that would accumulate if the product did not have the same brand (Alnsour & Subbah, 2018). Five components (dimensions) of brand equity are highlighted in the literature on the subject (Aaker, 1991): (1) brand loyalty, (2) brand awareness, (3) perceived quality, (4) brand association, (5) other proprietary brand assets (i.e., patents, trademarks, relationships taking place in distribution channels). Importantly, the first four components of brand equity create the so-called consumer-based brand equity, while the last refers to the enterprise (Schivinski & Łukasik, 2017).

It is extremely important to distinguish brand value from brand equity. It should be assumed that brand equity is responsible for what a brand means to customer, while brand value is related to what that brand means to a specific organization. Many researchers do not distinguish these two, which unfortunately does not help in understanding the scientific discourse (Raggio & Leone, 2007). Brand value is mainly related to the financial sphere. It can be discussed when trying to evaluate a brand: it is a financial value that depends on the current and expected strength of the brand and the financial effect of the management board’s ability to use this strength strategically (Kurzyk, 2014). On the other hand, brand equity should be placed in the marketing sphere of an enterprise (Dębski, 2009). As the definition itself indicates, brand equity reduces or increases the value of the product with this brand. It is also symptomatic that some researchers (Leuthesser, Kohli & Harich, 1995) define brand equity as simply a perceived value obtained in comparison to a non-branded product.

Customer associations with a brand involve psychological relationships with a specific brand that are divided into three approaches in the literature (Aaker, 1996): (1) brand as a product (value proposition); (2) brand as a person (brand personality); (3) brand as an organization (associations with the enterprise). The first approach mainly involves functional benefits. The second perspective involves strictly emotional benefits, while the third can be seen when the company’s activity is seen in the broader environment and may be related to CSR activities, for example. This division is crucial in our opinion when analyzing individual dimensions of value. Associations with the product involve the functional dimension of the product (e.g., the location of the trade format), while the approach to the brand personality is more related to the hedonistic dimension, and the perspective of a brand as an organization involves the perception of the company’s activities in the field of the so-called corporate brand.

The concept of customer perceived value was introduced into economics by Drucker in the 1950s (Drucker, 2007), and was developed by Porter (1985). As Khalifa (2004) claims, customer perceived value is a category that is often misused in the social sciences, and in particular in the economic sciences. This is due to the characteristics of the construct, because customer perceived value is treated as personal (i.e., the perception is different from customer to customer) and is truly situation-related in that it depends on the situational context. The consequence of this is a large number of construct definitions (Tab. 3).

The definitions of customer perceived value can be divided into four groups. In the first, the attributes of a product and service are emphasized, in the second, the relationship between the enterprise and the customer, in the third, value is perceived as a result of benefits and costs perceived by the recipient, whereas in the fourth, the value is recognized in the context of the goals that the recipient achieves as a result of purchase or use of a product.

Value creation with an enterprise improves brand image not only among the cooperating process participants, but also among less engaged customers. Therefore, the process of value creation is antecedent to brand image creation. It is also worth referring to the research by Ind, Iglesias and Schulz (2013). According to these researchers, customers who participate in value co-creation strongly associate with a specific brand. Participants like these are often more are inclined to express positive opinions about a particular company, thus promoting its brand (Dijk, Antonides & Schillewaert, 2014). Therefore, customer engagement is an inherent element of this process. Brands with a strong capital equity generate greater commitment, which in turn influences the motivation for customer engagement (van Doorn et al., 2010). In the literature on the subject, statements can be found that brand equity is a collection of judgments, attitudes, and customers’ behaviors. Thus, this construct is directly related to value creation by customers (Polański, 2010).

Relationships Between Customer

Engagement and a Brand Customer engagement (CE) has become one of the most thoroughly exploited categories in the theory of marketing management (Vohra & Bhardwaj, 2019; Kucia, 2018; Krowicki, 2022). However, it is not a homogeneous concept — its meaning is far from being unambiguous, which raises controversy (Chan, Zheng, Cheung, Lee & Lee, 2014). Researchers agree that the customer’s power is growing. Customers are increasingly interested in creating value both for theirselves and for others. Free access to information and to the ways it is spread through virtual customer communities have empowered the customer in relation to the enterprise. The contemporary customer has become more educated, aware of their role and, as a result, encounters the company’s employees or other stakeholders more frequently, which makes them more engaged. From a passive recipient of marketing messages, the customer has transformed into a co-creator of communication.

CE is defined in various ways (Tab. 4) and can be considered from three perspectives: (1) three-dimensional, cognitive-emotional-behavioral (Patterson, 2006; Gołąb-Andrzejak, 2021), (2) two-dimensional, cognitive-emotional (Bowden, 2009) and (3) one-dimensional, mainly behavioral (Żyminkowska, 2018a; Maciejewski & Krowicki, 2021). The latter perspective treats CE as customer behavior towards a brand or company that is not related to purchasing and results from motivational factors (van Doorn et al., 2010). The authors of the present article stand for a narrow behavioral approach to customer engagement. This behavioral interpretation of CE does not overlap with the constructs of affective and cognitive commitment or customer involvement (Harmeling, Moffett, Arnold, & Carlson, 2017). Importantly, the narrow, non-transactional approach to CE does not overlap with the behavioral loyalty approach — the non-transactional nature of the customer engagement construct differs from purchasing regularity. In our view, customers’ transactional behavior should be eliminated from the conceptual frames of the CEB concept. Then, this approach does not coincide with the concept of relations with a customer and thus, it only applies to intangible sources of customer value (Żyminkowska et al., 2018a).

Customer engagement is related to the concept of customer perceived value. According to the theory of consumption values (Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991; Grzegorczyk, 2019) and the concept of customer value (Holbrook, 2006), the customer’s motivation to engage depends on the values they expect to obtain. This is confirmed by Vivek et al. (2012). According to these researchers, value is both an antecedent and a consequence of customer engagement (Vivek, Beatty, & Morgan, 2012). Maslowska, Malthouse and Collinger (2016) show that engagement affects customer perceived value, and this is also confirmed by Sobocińska (2015). Hollebeek (2013) also notes that customer engagement generates customer perceived value: therefore, CE is a perceived value driver. Interestingly, Hollebeek analyzed brands with both a hedonistic and a utilitarian orientation, and it turned out that in the case of both types of brands, CE is a perceived value generator. After testing the model of customer engagement/value interface, she showed that in the case of hedonistic brands, customer engagement affects the customer perceived value more. In Polish research, the analysis by Witczak (2013) is noteworthy. In his view, user involvement in the brand profile can be used in building brand identity and, as a result, it can increase its value.

The study by Dong, Evans, and Zou (2008) on customer participation in the repair service showed that customer perceived value leads to customer engagement, whereas a subsequent analysis by Carlson, Rahman, Taylor, and Voola (2019) confirmed that value in the brand page experience (VIBE) contributes to customer engagement and also confirmed that various forms of CE are stimulated by this value. The research by Brzozowska-Woś (2020) also indicated that the perceived value of a brand has a positive impact on customer engagement, as did the analysis by Ngo, Nguyen and Kang (2019) conducted in Vietnamese restaurants. It is also worth noting that, according to Gupta and Pandey (2021), CPV (customer perceived value) is a factor that precedes customer engagement in the retail area. Barari, Ross, Thaichon, and Surachartkumtonkun (2021) see perceived value in a similar way. The concept according to which value is the antecedent of customer engagement is associated with the fact that customers are engaged by a specific value (benefit) that they expect to get through that engagement. Jaakkola and Alexander’s offline research conducted in an offline real environment is extremely interesting. It shows that customer engagement behavior can generate a wide range of benefits for a company, customer(s) and other stakeholders. It is also worth observing that the researchers noticed that the nature of the customer engagement process is cyclical. According to these researchers, the motives, manifestations and consequences of CE are repetitive, because the positive antecedents of customer engagement motivate them to stay active, whereas the company is motivated to support this kind of behavior. This is confirmed by the analyses by Żyminkowska (2018b), who, based on means-ends models, states that the benefits of CE (expected effects of customer engagement) can be treated both as consequences and motivating factors of CE.

To sum up, it should be clearly stated that the concepts of customer perceived value and customer engagement are closely related to each other. In the literature on the subject, various formulations of CE are presented where customer perceived value is treated as a motive of engagement or as an effect.

When analyzing model views of customer engagement and brand, van Doorn et al.’s (2010) concept is worth looking at, according to which brand characteristics and company image are a prerequisite for CE, while brand commitment is an important factor from the customer’s perspective. The issue of brand is also raised by Żyminkowska and Żyminkowski (2016). In their model, the attitude towards the brand is treated as an antecedent of customer engagement.

In the literature on the subject, the influence of brand equity on the online customer engagement in relation to a brand has already been shown. In other words, the more brand equity is perceived as higher, the more actively the customer reads, comments, shares and creates brand-related content (Schivinski & Łukasik, 2017). Research also shows that a high brand reputation increases recipient interest in the marketing communication of this brand and makes reception of such a message more positive (Brzozowska-Woś, 2020).

When identifying the relationship between CE and brand, it is impossible not to pay attention to the concept of customer engagement in its relationship with the brand (CBE). Therefore, interactions with the brand are subsumed in customer engagement. This category is precisely defined by Martí et al. (2014), while defining CBE as the 'customer’s mental state shaped as a result of interaction with a specific brand’. According to Algesheimer, Borle, Dholakia, and Singh (2010), CBE is 'a mechanism that lets you strengthen a customer’s relationship with a brand’, whereas Hollebeek (2011) defines this construct as 'a level of customer engagement triggered by a brand as well as the customer attitude and mood formed by the customer’s direct and indirect contacts with a brand.’ These relationships can have various dimensions: cognitive, affective and/or behavioral (Kieżel & Wiechoczek, 2016). In our view, the behavioral interpretation is also the most appropriate in the case of this construct. CBE is nothing but a type of customer engagement, where the brand is the subject of interest. The psychological approach to CBE will introduce chaos in the interpretation. Brand engagement is influenced by brand activities, brand quality and brand value, brand innovation, brand responsiveness and delivering the brand promise (Hollebeek & Chen, 2014).

The brand helps customers to build their own identity, and the show effect and the need to belong are crucial in this process. This is confirmed by the research by Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit (2011). According to these researchers, it is the personal identity that is the factor that motivates customers to contribute content and create content in the online environment. It is also worth paying attention to the research by Bartkowiak and Michalak (2020), which showed that recognition and selfesteem are among the motives of customer engagement. Shah (2004) also draws attention to how important it is to build and maintain an individual’s reputation and strengthen identity and self-image in the CE process.

Conclusions and recommendations

Brand is a value driver. Creating a specific customer perceived value is closely related to the stage of its communication. With that, the brand image is created. Furthermore, it can be said that a brand can have a meaning like value because it speaks of values delivered to a customer.

Brand exists in the area of communication (Polański, 2010), hence it can be assumed that communicating the value is the key stage in identifying the relationship between the concept of customer perceived value and the brand. This phase is one of the elements of the value creation process aimed at positioning, and thus shaping the brand image.

On the other hand, customer engagement is becoming progressively more important in the effective and efficient management of this communication. In the marketing value network, the customer becomes the sender of messages, engaging in various forms of customer engagement, i.e., word of mouth marketing (WOM), participation in marketing events, reactions in social media, or content contributions in a virtual environment. By co-creating value, positive customer engagement can strengthen the brand’s image.

An analysis of the literature on the subject allows us to state that in some perspectives brand image is close to customer perceived value, while brand identity is a construct related to the value proposition. Brand identity refers to a set of features and benefits that the product is to provide to the customer, while brand image is the result of the constructed identity. Therefore, it is worth noting that this relationship resembles the relationship presented in the literature on the subject between two perspectives of value for the customer, i.e., customer value proposition and customer perceived value. The customer perceived value is the actual result a company developing a set of distinguishing attributes (Landroguez, Castro, & Cepeda-Carrión, 2013).

Incorporation of brands into the process of building one’s own identity is also a specific feature of the contemporary customer. Brand personalization allows a customer to emphasize their place in the social hierarchy (Mazurek-Łopacińska, 2021). In the postmodern era, consumption is more important than production, while value is not only a feature of a product, but also becomes a feature of a created image (Maciejewski, 2014). Brand is a condition of customer engagement. It is of great importance in creating your own image. By engaging in contact with a brand and its community, a desire to present one’s individuality, unique identity and one’s own preferences is emphasized. This is also one component in a customer society that glorifies self-creation.

The company’s goal should be to manage the brand so that it confirms the customer perceived value. This is related to the aspect of risk reduction, which is extremely important in the context of a constantly increasing number of brands on the market and the crisis of confidence. Customers, who are an integral part of branding, should be part of brand management. From this perspective, a brand can be treated as a risk reducer and customer perceived value. Therefore, to build a brand so that it encourages various forms of engagement and thus creates customer perceived value is a challenge.

We are aware of the limitations of this research. The conclusions of the critical literature review should be treated as an incentive for further discussion on the relationship between the brand and customer perceived value as well as CE. In addition, it is worth looking at the issue of customer value through the prism of the company. From this perspective, it is necessary to link the issue of customer value with the construct of the value of the company, which has been described by B. Dobiegała-Korona (2014; 2015). In other words, customer value should generate value for the company. Undoubtedly, empirical research that analyses these relationships would be of great theoretical and applied value.

Acknowledgements
This research received no funds

References

1. Aaker D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity Capitalizing on the Value of Brand Name, New York: The Free Press.

2. Aaker D. A. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets. California Management Review, 38, 102–120.

3. Algesheimer R., Borle S., Dholakia U.M., & Singh S.S. (2010). The impact of customer community participation on customer behaviours: An empirical investigation. Marketing Science, 29(4), 756–769.

4. Alnsour M. S. & Subbah M. L. (2018). Impact of brand elements on brand equity: An applied study on Jordanian Corporations. African Journal of Marketing Management, 10(3), 17–27.

5. Altkorn J. (2001). Strategia marki [Brand strategy], Warszawa: Wydawnictwo PWE.

6. Barari M., Ross M., Thaichon S., & Surachartkumtonkun J. (2021). A meta-analysis of customer engagement behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 457–477.

7. Bartkowiak P., & Michalak, S. (2020). Motywy angażowania się mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej we współtworzenie wartości dla klienta [Motives of the inhabitants of the Poznań agglomeration for engaging in co-creation of customer value], In: I. Bohdanowicza, P. Dziurski (eds.) Innowacje i marketing we współczesnych organizacjach. Wybrane zagadnienia, Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.

8. Bartosz P. (2017). Marketing doświadczeń w budowaniu wartości dla klienta [Experience marketing in building customer value]. Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 1(37), 5–18.

9. Beckers S. F. M., Doorn van J., & Verhoef P. C. (2018). Good, better, engaged? The effect of company-initiated customer engagement behavior on shareholder value. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 46(3), 366–383.

10. Brzozowska-Woś, M. (2020). Wpływ komunikacji marketingowej na angażowanie się w markę i współtworzenie jej wartości przez młodych konsumentów [Influence of marketing communication on young consumers’ engagement in a brand and co-creation of its value], Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Gdańskiej.

11. Butz H. E. & Goodstein L. D. (1996). Measuring Customer Value: Gaining the Strategic Advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 63–77.

12. Carlson J., Rahman M. M., Taylor A., & Voola R. (2019). Feel the VIBE: Examining value in the brand page experience and its impact on satisfying and customer engagement behaviours in mobile social media. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 46, 149–162.

13. Chan T. K. H., Zheng X., Cheung C. M. K., Lee M. K. O., & Lee, Z. W. Y. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of customer engagement in online brand communities. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 2(2), 81–97.

14. de Chernatony L. & McWilliam G. (1989). The strategic implications of clarifying how marketers interpret „brands”. Journal of Marketing Management, 5(2), 153–171.

15. Dębski M. (2009). Kreowanie silnej marki [Creating a strong brand], Warszawa: PWE.

16. Dijk J., Antonides G., & Schillewaert N. (2014). Effects of co-creation claim on consumer brand perceptions and behavioural intentions. International Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 28(1), 4–22.

17. Dobiegała-Korona, B. (2014). Innowacje w budowie wartości przedsiębiorstwa [Innovation in building company value]. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Humanitas, 1, 25–40.

18. Dobiegała-Korona, B. (2015). Budowa wartości klienta. Teoria i praktyka [Building customer value: Theory and practice], Warszawa: Difin.

19. Doligalski T. (2013). Internet w zarządzaniu wartością klienta [Internet in customer value management], Warszawa: Oficyna wydawnicza Szkoła Główna Handlowa.

20. Dolińska-Weryńska D. (2018). Marka jako wartość w innowacyjnym przedsiębiorstwie regionu śląskiego w opinii pracowników będących absolwentami śląskich uczelni technicznych i ekonomicznych [Brand as a value in an innovative enterprise in the Silesian region, in the opinions of employees who graduated from Silesian technical and economic universities]. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 129, 67–80.

21. Dong B., Evans K. R., & Zou S. (2008). The Effects of Customer Participation in CoCreated Service Recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 123–137.

22. van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Naß, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266.

23. Drapińska, A. (2020). Marketing relacji we współczesnym świecie [Relationship marketing in today’s world], Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Gdańskiej. 24. Drucker, P. (2007). The Practice of Management, London: Routledge. Farquar P. (1989). Managing Brand Equity. Marketing Research, 1(3), 24–33. 25. Gale B. (1994). Managing Customer Value, New York: The Free Press

26. Gołąb-Andrzejak, E. (2021). Zaangażowanie konsumenta w usługach w ujęciu logiki dominacji usługowej [Consumer involvement in services in terms of the logic of service dominance], Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Gdańskiej.

27. Gołębiowski T. (1996). Marketing wartości na rynku instytucjonalnym [Value marketing in the institutional market], In: E. Duliniec, L. Garbarski, J. Mazur, M. Strzyżewska, W. Wrzosek, Ekspansja czy regres marketingu, Warszawa: PWE.

28. Grzegorczyk T. (2019). Pomiar wartości postrzeganej przez konsumentów [Measuring consumer perceived value]. Zeszyty Naukowe UE w Krakowie, 5(983), 37–55.

29. Gupta A. & Pandey S. (2021). Should we engage variety seeking customers? Journal of Asia Business Studies, www.emerald.com, [accessed: 1.03.2022].

30. Harmeling C., Moffett, M., Arnold, & M., Carlson, B. (2017). Toward a theory of customer engagement marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 3, 312–325. 31. Hollebeek L. D. (2011). Exploring customer brand management — definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573.

32. Hollebeek L. D. (2013). The customer engagement/value interface: An exploratory investigation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 21(1), 17–24.

33. Hollebeek L. D. & Chen T. (2014). Exploring Positively — vs. Negatively-Valenced Brand Engagement: A Conceptual Model. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 62–74.

34. Howaniec H. (2008). Udział marki w tworzeniu wartości przedsiębiorstwa [Contribution of the brand to the creation of company value]. Studia i Prace Wydziału Nauk Ekonomicznych i Zarzadzania, 7, 485–494.

35. Ind N., Iglesias O., & Schultz M. (2013). Building brands together: Emergence and outcomes of co-creation. California Management Review, 55(3), 5–26.

36. Jaakkola E., & Alexander M. (2014). The Role of Customer Engagement behavior in value co-creation: a service system perspective. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), 247–261.

37. Jones C., & Bonevac D. (2013). An evolved definition of the term „brand”: Why branding has a branding problem. Journal of Brand Strategy, 2(2), 112–120.

38. Kall, J. (2001). Silna marka: Istota i kreowanie [Strong brand: Essence and creation], Warszawa: PWE.

39. Keller K. L. (2012). Understanding the richness of brand relationship. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 22, 186–190.

40. Khalifa A. S. (2004). Customer value: a review of recent literature and an integrative configuration. Management Decision, 42(5), 645–666.

41. Kieżel M. & Wiechoczek J. (2016). Aktywności online konsumentów w kontekście Customer Brand Engagement [Consumers’ online activities in the context of Customer Brand Engagement]. Prace Naukowe UE we Wrocławiu, 459, 130–141.

42. Kothandaraman P. & Wilson D. T. (2001). The future of competitionL Value-Creating Networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(4), 379–389.

43. Kotler Ph. (1991). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hal.

44. Kozłowska A. (2005). Reklama — Od osobowości marki do osobowości konsumenta [Advertising — From brand personality to consumer personality]. In: A. Grzegorczyk (eds.), Instrumenty kształtowania wizerunku marki, Warszawa: Wyższa Szkoła Promocji.

45. Krowicki P. (2022). Customer engagement — związki z kategoriami pokrewnymi i konteksty badawcze [Customer engagement — relationship with related categories and research contexts]. Marketing i Rynek, 29(1), 32–43.

46. Kucia M. (2018). Wykorzystanie zaangażowania klientów w działalności marketingowej przedsiębiorstwa [The use of customer engagement in corporate marketing activities], Katowice: Wydawnictwo UE w Katowicach.

47. Kumar V., Aksoy L., Donkers B., Venkatesan R., Wiesel T., & Tillmanns S. (2010). Undervalued or Overvalued Customers: capturing Total Customer Engagement Value. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 297–310.

48. Kurzyk B. (2014). Potencjał wykorzystania reklamy natywnej dla celów budowy siły marki [The potential of using native advertising to build brand strength]. [CD-ROM], Marketing i Rynek, 11, 204–212.

49. Landroguez S. M., Castro C. B., & Cepeda-Carrión G. (2013). Developing an integrated vision of customer value. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(3), 234–244. 50. Leuthesser L., Kohli, C. S, & Harich, K. R. (1995). Brand equity: the halo effect measure. European Journal of Marketing, 29(4), 57–66.

51. Lichtenstein D. R., Netemeyer R. G., & Burton S. (1990). Distinguishing Coupon Proneness from Value Consciousness: An Acquisition-Transaction Utility Theory Perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 54–67.

52. Łada M. &Kozarkiewicz A. (2010). Zarządzanie wartością projektów [Managing the value of projects], Warszawa: Wyd. C.H. Beck.

53. Łukasik P. & Schivinski B. (2015). Pomiar kapitału marek własnych detalistów [Measuring retailers’ own brand equity], Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, 44(1), 81–88.

54. Maciejewski G. (2014). Zachowania konsumentów w dobie postmodernizmu [Consumer behaviour in the postmodern era]. Marketing i Rynek, 8, 1129–1135.

55. Maciejewski G., Mokrysz S., & Wróblewski Ł. (2020). Consumers Towards Marketing Strategies of Coffee Producers, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

56. Maciejewski G. & Krowicki P. (2021). Virtual Environment as a Space of Shopping Center Customer Engagement. Problemy Zarządzania, 4(94), 81–100.

57. Martí J., Bigné E., Hyder A. (2014). Brand engagement. In: L. Moutinho, E. Bigné, A. K. Manrai (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Future of Marketing, London, New York: Routledge.

58. Maslowska E., Malthouse E.C., & Collinger T. (2016). The customer engagement ecosystem. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5), 469–501.

59. Mazurek-Łopacińska, K. (2021). Zachowania konsumentów na współczesnym rynku. Perspektywa marketingowa [Consumer behaviour in the contemporary market. A marketing perspective], Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.

60. Monroe K.B. (1990). Pricing: Marketing Profitable Decisions, New York: Mc Graw-Hill.

61. Muntinga D.G., Moorman M., & Smit E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs. Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13–46.

62. Netemeyer, R. G., Lrosjmam, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. & Wirth, F. (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 54, 209–224.

63. Ngo H. Q., Nguyen T. H., & Kang G. D. (2019). The effect of perceived value on customer engagement with the moderating role of brand image: a study in Vietnamese restaurants, International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring engineering, 8, 451–461.

64. Ogilvy D. (1985). Ogilvy on Advertising, New York: First Vintage Book.

65. Pabian A.M. (2020). Kształtowanie oferty przedsiębiorstwa [Shaping a company’s offer]. In: A. Czubała, R. E. Niestrój, A. M. Pabian (eds.) Marketing w przedsiębiorstwie — ujęcie operacyjne, Warszawa: PWE.

66. Park C. W., Jaworski B. J, & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of marketing, 50(4), 135–145.

67. Patterson P., Yu T., & de Ruyter K. (2006). Understanding Customer Engagement in Services, In: Proceedings of ANZMAC 2006, Conference, Brisbane.

68. Pitcher A.E. (1985). The Role of Branding in International Advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 4(3), 241–246.

69. Pluta-Olearnik, M., (2019). New generations of students from the perspective of valueco creation at University. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych. 4(34), 1–20.

70. Polański, P. Marka jako źródło wartości dla klienta [Brand as a source of customer value], In: Dobiegała-Korona, B. & Doligalski T. (ed.), Zarządzanie wartością klienta. Pomiar i strategie, Warszawa: Poltext.

71. Porter M. (1985). Competitive Advantage. Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York: The Free Press.

72. Raggio R.D. & Leone R.P. (2007). The theoretical separation of brand equity and brand value: Managerial implications for strategic planning. Journal of Brand management, 14, 380–395.

73. Rajavi K., Kushwaha, T., & Steenkamp, J-B. E. M. (2019). In Brands We Trust? Multicategory, Multicountry Investigation of Sensitivity of Consumers’ Trust in Brands to Marketing-Mix Activites. Journal of Consumer Research, 46, 651–670.

74. Ravald A. & Grönroos Ch. (1996). The Value Concept and Relationship Marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 19–30.

75. Rytel O. (2008). Silna marka — fundament wartości przedsiębiorstwa [A strong brand — the foundation of a company’s value]. Studia i Prace Wydziału Nauk Ekonomicznych i Zarządzania, 7, 557–565.

76. Schivinski B. & Łukasik P. (2017). Wymiary kapitału marki jako moderatory związku pomiędzy kapitałem marki bazującym na konsumencie i skłonnością konsumenta do angażowania się w treści związane z markę w mediach społecznościowych [Brand capital dimensions as moderators of the relationship between consumer-based brand capital and consumer propensity to engage with brand content on social media]. Handel wewnętrzny, 1(366), 80–90.

77. Shah S. (2004). Understanding the Nature of Participation & Coordination in Open and Gated Source Software Development Communities, In: Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2004, 46–50.

78. Sheth J. N., Newman B. I., & Gross B. L. (1991). Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption Values. Journal of Business Research, 22, 159–170.

79. Sinha I. & DeSarbo W. S. (1998). An integrated approach toward the spatial modelling of perceived customer value. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 236–259.

80. Sojkin B. (2015). Uwarunkowania działalności marketingowej instytucji naukowych i badawczych [Determinants of marketing activity at scientific and research institutions]. Marketing instytucji naukowych i badawczych, 1(15), 20–32.

81. Sobocińska M. (2015). Uwarunkowania i perspektywy rozwoju orientacji rynkowej w podmiotach sfery kultury [Determinants and perspectives for market orientation development in entities in the cultural sector], Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, Wrocław 2015.

82. Szarucki M. & Bugaj J. (2016). Metody identyfikacji problemów zarządzania w organizacji — próba typologii [Methods of identifying management problems in an organisation — an attempt at a typology]. Journal of Management and Finance, 14(2), 435–450.

83. Szymura-Tyc M. (2006). Marketing we współczesnych procesach tworzenia wartości dla klienta i przedsiębiorstwa [Marketing in contemporary customer and business value creation processes], Katowice: Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Katowicach.

84. Urban S. (2004). Zarządzanie marką produktów i usług [Brand management for products and services]. Zeszyty Naukowe Wałbrzyskiej Wyższej Szkoły Zarządzania i Przedsiębiorczości, 25(2), 4–11.

85. Walter A., Ritter T., & Gemünden H. G. (2001). Value creation in buyer-seller relationship: Theoretical considerations and empirical results from a supplier’s perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(4), 365–366.

86. Witczak O. (2013). Budowanie wartości marki w serwisie społecznościowym [Building brand value in a social network]. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, 32, 444–446.

87. Verhoef P. C., Reinartz W. J., & Krafft M. (2010). Customer engagement as a new perspective in customer management. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 247–252.

88. Vivek S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan R. M. (2012). Customer engagement: exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20 (2), 127–145.

89. Vohra, A. & Bhardwaj, N. (2019). Customer engagement in an e-commerce brand community. An empirical comparison of alternate models. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 13(1), 2–25.

90. Zeithaml V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.

91. Żyminkowska K. (2018a). Źródła teoretyczne, istota, formy oraz modele customer engagement [Theoretical sources, essence, forms and models of customer engagement], In: Żyminkowska, K., Wiechoczek, J., Kieżel, M., Żyminkowski, T., Zjawisko customer engagement wśród polskich konsumentów, Warszawa: PWN.

92. Żyminkowska K. (2018b), Customer engagement i customer value — o związkach między kluczowymi kategoriami współczesnego marketingu relacji [Customer engagement and customer value — the relationship between key categories in contemporary relationship marketing], In: K. Żyminkowska (eds), Nowe koncepcje w nauce o marketingu i rynkach. Księga Jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesorowi Leszkowi Żabińskiemu, K. Żyminkowska (red.), Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, 175–177.

93. Żyminkowska K. (2019). Customer Engagement in Theory and Practice. A Marketing Management Perspective, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

94 Żyminkowska K. & Żyminkowski T. (2016). Angażowanie (się) klientów we współtworzenie wartości — formy, uwarunkowania i efekty [Customer involvement in co-creation of value — forms, conditions and effects]. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 459, 103–120.